Trapper John
Ejection Handle Pulled
That's an exceptionally weak argument, if you're trying to justify texting while driving. Texting while driving is just as stupid as drinking and driving.
Trapper John
Medical - Previosue DUI
- Thread starter sanforce
- Start date
That's an exceptionally weak argument, if you're trying to justify texting while driving. Texting while driving is just as stupid as drinking and driving.
Trapper John
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,433
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
Evidence? I'm sure if texting leads to as many deaths every year as DWI, there must be some evidence, right?
Trapper John
Ejection Handle Pulled
Logically vacuous. A wholly irresponsible action does not need to lead to the same number of fatalities as another wholly irresponsible action to be equally stupid.
Trapper John
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
No, and actually, I wasn't attempting to make a direct reference to Nick either. That was an after thought.
What I was trying to convey (maybe weakly) is that many of us here are 40, 50, 60, 70 and we seem to expect 20 somethings to be as mature as we are*. We seem to forget all the stupid stuff we did when we were young (and got by with because times were different then). Or we pretend now that we never did it. No, I can't sit here and say you all did stupid stuff but I'd bet that the vast majority did.
No the OP is not showing impeccable judgment with his numerous posts in this thread. He definitely needs to grow up a bit, and he certainly made a mistake when he was 17. BUT he was 17 for chrissake. I'd hate it if all the stuff I pulled when I was in my teens was out there for all of you to scrutinize. In fact I'd hate it if I could remember half of it!
The other thing that struck me wrong was that many of the replies weren't in the spirit of assistance. They were smack downs. And I responded in a similar manner and for that I apologize.
* I am in no way claiming to be mature myself...I'm speaking for the rest of you! :smile:
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,433
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
I agree to a large extent. I made some stupid ass decisions as a teenager too. I am also not holding this guy's DWI against him, since it happened as a teenager (I know I drove drunk a bunch as a teen).
But to continue to defend it into the 20s? That's pretty bad. I realized two things growing up: High School is where you experiment with stupidity, you do drugs, you drink and drive, and you have threesomes with the less than morally sound women. By 21, you're an adult, and you focus on life. You drink responsibly, you cut out the drug use, and you have sex with one person at a time.
If someone isn't capable of doing that, they're not capable of flying a plane responsibly, IMHO.
Obi Heed Kenobi
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 10,918
- Display Name
Display name:
iBo Deeh Ibonek
That's some funny stuff.
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
By the way, Nick. This just happens to be a topic on MSN's website today.
"It's not a small problem: Nearly 6,000 people died in crashes involving distracted driving in 2008, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That's 16% of all traffic fatalities for that year. In addition, 500,000 were injured in 2008 in accidents involving some form of driver distraction,"
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.co...ed-driving-gets-more-attention.aspx?GT1=33004
And you grew up faster than I did. I had "threesomes with the less than morally sound women" all through college also. I also had a set of lungs that made even the most seasoned beer bong cower fearfully in the corner. Didn't really do much in the way of drugs during high school (it was small german-catholic beer only town) so I had to play catch-up in college!
Last edited:
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
You know Nick, being able to multi-task is an important part of flying.
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
You know Nick, being able to multi-task is an important part of flying.
Are you suggesting that this be added to the PTS?
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
A few weeks ago i saw a towtruck driving right at me in my lane. he was over the yellow line on my side of the road speed limit 50mph. I pulled as far right as I could and at the last moment the tow truck swerved back into his lane. I was shaking all the way until I got to work that morning as I came close to death I think. Good chance he was texting i bet. The incident made me rethink the whole texting while driving thing.
Last edited:
kevin47881
Final Approach
What makes you think he was texting?
I am guessing, but the fact that he suddenly realized he was in my lane and took drastic action to avoid hitting me. Just thought i would mention it here.
Mooneymike
Pre-Flight
Anyone else take note of the new guidelines for AME's for first time DUI offenses posted by Dr. Bruce over on the Red Board. It looks like the FAA is only going to get tougher and tougher on this matter. I still say if you value your flying its time to look at a personal policy of no drinking and driving for if you get caught up in a problem it will effect your medical certificate.
tdager
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 3,490
- Display Name
Display name:
LittleIronPilot
And this is something I do not understand...and I know you and Bruce will help me here.
In our legal system, for what appears to be EVERYTHING else, this man is being told by a member of the bar, that he does not, EVER have to report this, as in like never ever.
Yet the FAA says "nope...does not matter whatever else the law says, you will tell us".
So which "law" has primacy here? How can two parts of the government say they are right and the law supports them?
tdager
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 3,490
- Display Name
Display name:
LittleIronPilot
Than I hope the FAA never comes and visits the pilots I know. I am aware of one teetotaller pilot. The rest drink...everyone of them, drinks.
Now do they drink to drunk and drive? Hell no!
I am a former LEO, pilot, and value my life and career very much. I STILL have a glass of wine with an hour dinner and will drive home. I am about as impaired at that point as I am by being a bit tired after a long day at work, talking to my wife in the car, or listening to talk radio and getting really mad!
I am sorry...but I, for one, am tired of the "alcohol is evil" and the basic backdoor bans on it.
I do NOT support DUI by any means...but to tell anyone and everyone that a single beer over an hour period, with dinner, makes them horribly unsafe to drive is ridiculous.
Last edited:
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
That's certainly reasonable, but the guy here had a table that showed exactly how many drinks he could have and still be "legal". That's not one beer or a glass of wine with dinner
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
The FAA has now formally removed authority of the AME in the field to issue a new (or and established) pilot after a first ever DUI. We have to obtain court records and defer. It's in Dr. Silberman's response to Dr. George Higgins, on page 5 (bottom, left) of this current issue of the FASMB. http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/fasmb/media/201001_color.pdf
I have a 42 y.o commercial rotor pilot who is going through a divorce, got smashed, smashed his pickup....when it rains it pours.
I have a 42 y.o commercial rotor pilot who is going through a divorce, got smashed, smashed his pickup....when it rains it pours.
Last edited:
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
There. Fixed it for ya.
I already know of at least a dozen pilots who are flying without medicals and AFAIK none of them have been caught and all this will do is exacerbate that situation.
Here in the midwest, ramp checks are pretty much non-existant. I also spent a lot of time in GA and AL and actually most of the "renegade" pilots that I know are down there.
I'm not condoning any of this mind you. Just sayin'.....
Pilots by our nature tend to be renegades and many won't let a little inconvenience like not having a medical keep them on the ground.
Last edited:
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
I fired a CFI once after I witnessed him drinking to the point of stupidity one night at a Christmas party in a hangar at the airport I was flying out of back then, and then staggering into his 172 and flying home -- to an airport that wasn't even lit, mind you. I thought he was just getting a pack of cigarettes or something out of the airplane. I was dumbfounded when he started 'er up and flew home. I'm pretty sure the school fired him after that.
Now I must say, I'm no saint. I've done my share if icky things, especially when I was a young man. But DWI... No. Never have. Never will.
When I was a young man, many a friend's sofas I crashed on because I knew enough not to drive after drinking -- and I wasn't even what anyone would call a heavy drinker. No one ever preached about DWI to me, and it really wasn't a big issue like it is now when I first started driving. It just seemed... dumb.
When I got involved with EMS, I witnessed first-hand what a drunk behind the wheel of a car could do, and it reinforced my policy of not driving if I'd been drinking. Even today, if I have a single glass of wine with dinner (which is all I'm allowed to have anyway because of the diabetes), I'll kill time for a while before driving. Coupla' cups of coffee and some conversation give the alcohol a chance to be metabolized.
I don't condemn anyone for their mistakes. Like I said: I'm no saint. But some things just seem so recklessly dumb to me that I have a hard time understanding why people do them. DWI is pretty high on that list.
-Rich
Now I must say, I'm no saint. I've done my share if icky things, especially when I was a young man. But DWI... No. Never have. Never will.
When I was a young man, many a friend's sofas I crashed on because I knew enough not to drive after drinking -- and I wasn't even what anyone would call a heavy drinker. No one ever preached about DWI to me, and it really wasn't a big issue like it is now when I first started driving. It just seemed... dumb.
When I got involved with EMS, I witnessed first-hand what a drunk behind the wheel of a car could do, and it reinforced my policy of not driving if I'd been drinking. Even today, if I have a single glass of wine with dinner (which is all I'm allowed to have anyway because of the diabetes), I'll kill time for a while before driving. Coupla' cups of coffee and some conversation give the alcohol a chance to be metabolized.
I don't condemn anyone for their mistakes. Like I said: I'm no saint. But some things just seem so recklessly dumb to me that I have a hard time understanding why people do them. DWI is pretty high on that list.
-Rich
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Tom, the license to fly and the medical are an individual's ticket to insurance. "Promote and Regulate" in our culture means to "make insurable".
The Attorney is wrong. There is nothing more harmful than BAD, IGNORANT advice.
The aviation medical falls under "administrative law" from which there is little recourse and which cannot be judged under most civil statues. The requirement to report (not just convictions, but even alcohol related arrests that eventually may get expunged, as in "history of" not "record of") is administrative in origin.
None of which matters if you don't need insurance, of course.
The Attorney is wrong. There is nothing more harmful than BAD, IGNORANT advice.
The aviation medical falls under "administrative law" from which there is little recourse and which cannot be judged under most civil statues. The requirement to report (not just convictions, but even alcohol related arrests that eventually may get expunged, as in "history of" not "record of") is administrative in origin.
None of which matters if you don't need insurance, of course.
Last edited:
etsisk
En-Route
Bruce, in reading the question and answer on p. 5 of the FAS' Medical Bulletin, it seems to be saying that for new apps or new dui's the AME can no longer issue from the office without first getting the court records, but after s/he gets the records, if the blood alcohol is less than 0.15, the AME can still issue (in effect, deferring until the records show up in the AME's office, then issuing if less than 0.15). If the airman had refused, or blown higher or equal to 0.15, then the AME would have to defer to OKC and could not issue from the office.
Is that a correct reading?
Glad I've never gotten one of those and quit drinking almost 22 years ago.
Is that a correct reading?
Glad I've never gotten one of those and quit drinking almost 22 years ago.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yes. But most of the pilots here don't have the sense to blow. If they are intoxicated, nothing they write can nor should contradict the LEO who is the only "sober agent" at the scene. The Breathalizer can only help your case. We are, of course assuming the LEO is also sober (we had one really wild case here a while ago when the LEO was monoxide impaired...old squad cars!!).
But the day and age of the "in comes the airman", "out he goes with a certificate" are over.
But the day and age of the "in comes the airman", "out he goes with a certificate" are over.
Doggtyred
En-Route
My lawyer buddies and cop buddies both agree if there is any chance you are intoxicated, shut up, sit down, don't blow, and let the cop prove his case. Everything you say/do will be used against you.
Whats the FAA stance on arrest but no conviction for DWI/DUI?
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
That depends on whether or not you imbibed any alcohol, of course. If you're clean, I'd blow. . the LEO is going to have a HARD time with his case thereafter.
It's in wording to question 19a and is considered the same, exactly as a conviction- it's an alcohol related motor vehicle arrest. EVEN if the arrest is expunged, since the question does not say, "Have record of arrest...." but says "ever had an arrest...." you're still on the hook for the records.
The time of walking out of the office PIC is over, if you have one of these. OKC wants to see the documents on all of these.
Last edited:
Doggtyred
En-Route
But.. from a final issuance standpoint...(not just the AME's initial deferment to OKC).. what is the FAA's stance on it (arrested, but no conviction for whatever reason..)..
I can appreciate if you were found guilty.. you pay your dues.. but whats their take in situations where you are NOT adjudicated guilty. Issue? SI? Non Issue?
tdager
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 3,490
- Display Name
Display name:
LittleIronPilot
True...and I do understand that. I, however, AM one of those that can go out with the guys and self-limit myself to a beer or two if I have to drive in any reasonable amount of time.
tdager
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 3,490
- Display Name
Display name:
LittleIronPilot
True...thanks Bruce. It just seems we have so many laws, rules, and regulations that the old saying of "ignorance of the law is not excuse" is patently untrue. Especially when one actually goes and gets advice FROM an attorney.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
The country is moving more and more to "one strike, you're out" for a variety of reasons (liability being one, "public safety" being another). Doesn't matter whether it's an FAA medical, a job background check, or traveling across the border (Canada will deny entry to folks with a DUI), it is becoming "one-strike".
Choose wisely, grasshopper.
Obi Heed Kenobi
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 10,918
- Display Name
Display name:
iBo Deeh Ibonek
That reality is that the lawyer told him right for 90% of occurrences, because 90% of anything involving disclosure of this record won't be subject to Federal law. Sounds like the record in question was either sealed or expunged - and the standard effect given to that by state law is that it's as if the record never existed. For instance, on a background check with a sealed or expunged record, the agency is required to answer "in the same fashion that they do for people with no records."
But, the Commerce Clause trumps state law. The Commerce Clause gives Congress (the FAA) the authority to do anything "necessary and proper" to regulate interstate commerce - and it's beyond any dispute that aviation falls into that category.
And, the Supremacy Clause makes the Feds the supreme law of the land whenever/wherever/however the Feds have authority.
So, the FAA can require this disclosure, because it's done under the Commerce Clause, even if it runs counter to State law.
So, yeah, for *most* things, he won't have to disclose. But for things with the FAA, he does have to disclose it.
Obi Heed Kenobi
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 10,918
- Display Name
Display name:
iBo Deeh Ibonek
I'm not going to give legal advice or my opinions on the merits or lack thereof of what you've heard, but I feel obligated to point out that there are consequences to refusing chemical tests (breathalyzer or blood). Namely, you automatically lose your license for an extended period of time (at least one year, sometimes more) if you refuse a chemical test - regardless of whether you're ultimately found guilty.
Obi Heed Kenobi
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 10,918
- Display Name
Display name:
iBo Deeh Ibonek
Absolutely. The chemical tests aren't just a means of nailing your butt for doing something wrong - if you've merely weaved over a line a couple of times because you're tired at 3 a.m. and you were fiddling with your radio, taking the test if you're clean will...errr...save you being arrested for and charged with a DUI. Instead, you *might* get a weaving ticket, but just as likely you'll get a warning and directions to the nearest parking lot.
I agree. That's the obvious meaning of the language, and the Federal government also has the authority to disregard state law on the effect of expungments in this instance.
Note also that it refers to arrests, not convictions. Thus, even if you were to obtain a pardon, get your conviction reversed on appeal, etc., you'd still have to report the arrest.
The only exception I can make an argument for - and I don't know if a court would buy it - is if you were illegally arrested (say, without probable cause). I'd think you'd have an argument that being required to disclose an arrest that was legally wrong would violate due process (that is, it would be "fundamentally unfair").
tdager
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 3,490
- Display Name
Display name:
LittleIronPilot
and how is the average, non-lawyer laymen EVER supposed to figure all this out?
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is so far out of whack it is not even funny. It is very, very true that someone could be completely clueless about the law, and no I do not believe we all should have to need JD's to keep ourselves out of trouble.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Don't think they won't check on this either...
Doggtyred
En-Route
180 days here in Texas.. but that's an administrative revocation, not a criminal charge.. If you really ARE committing a DWI, the consequences of that poor decision-making will follow you long after 180 days are up.. Insurance.. and in several professions, professional sanctions up to and including loss of privileges for life (on subsequent convictions)
Only matters if you wanna be insurable, right?
On that note, I know of only one person who beat the admin revocation down here.. An NBA coach many years ago was stopped, he refused, and his lawyer was able to get the whole stop thrown out based on the officer's dashcam video; the end result was the ALR didn't proceed because there were not grounds for the stop, and specimen request, in the first place.
Obi Heed Kenobi
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 10,918
- Display Name
Display name:
iBo Deeh Ibonek
I understand where you're coming from. Trust me, I do.
And I used to think the exact same thing - I remember having the explicit thought in the past of "why does the law need to be so damned complex that I'm not sure whether what I'm doing is illegal or not?"
And then, a few things happened.
First, I got a law degree and realized that the more complicated the law is, the better my job security is. There's a direct correlation there.
Second, I got some experience. Despite the desire to have things be simple and readily understandable, we live in a complex world. Look at aviation, for example. It's ridiculously complex; our collective aviation experience has told us that there are many things that can go wrong - from the quality of gasoline to the possibility of a pilot using a medication that he doesn't know might reduce his abilities. Complex problems generally require complex answers: it's not enough to have a regulation saying "don't do anything that puts others at risk." Instead, you have to have a regulation saying "no pilot can use drugs commonly going by the trade names of X, Y, and Z, but that have the following specific chemical structure."
Third, I've found that people often overcomplicate the law. How many people have ever sat down and taken a look at their state's criminal law? Absent some things involving sciency stuff (like the measurements for the Intoxilyzer 2000), the laws are pretty easy to understand. "Thou shalt not run red lights," or "if thou killest thy wife, thou beist guilty of first degree murder in the course of domestic violence." It's really not terribly complex.
Even what we're discussing here isn't that complex. Guy got busted for a DUI (which is a crime that many if not most of us have committed, except most of us haven't gotten caught), and has to report it to the FAA, regardless of the outcome. The mechanism giving the FAA the authority to require that is a little more complex, but not terribly so - it's just a matter of something like 25 words in the Constitution.
So, I think in general - and take this with a grain of salt, because I spend all day with my nose in the Constitution and the Colorado Revised Statutes - that, while there's effort involved (as with anything), having a basic grasp of both legal principles and the law itself is well within the average person's grasp. It's just that the average person isn't going to take a Saturday to read the Constitution instead of (flying) (watching football) (crushing beers at the frat house).
Now, zoning codes. They're another story. My brain hurts just thinking about the things - and I know how they work.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
David, Thank you.
Obi Heed Kenobi
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 10,918
- Display Name
Display name:
iBo Deeh Ibonek
That's right on. I should have pointed out that 1+ year is in Colorado - time in other states will vary, but you're still looking at a pretty significant suspension/revocation. And yeah, it's problematic if you've got some kind of professional license. Consider an ATP, for instance - there's a requirement for something like "good character;" if you've got 2+ DUI's, you're raising questions in that regard.
Only matters if you wanna be insurable, right?
I know you're joking, but in reality, this isn't far from the truth. Think about it: is lack of a plastic card with your picture on it going to prevent you from driving? Especially if you live in a place lacking public transportation?
It doesn't happen too often. Every now and then, you'll beat it at the DMV/MVA level, but not often. The bottom line is that the police don't make many mistakes; if you're weaving all over the road at 2 a.m., the implications are pretty obvious....
Obi Heed Kenobi
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 10,918
- Display Name
Display name:
iBo Deeh Ibonek
David, Thank you.
Thanks, doc - I appreciate that. Although it's all of us that should be thanking you.
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
That's fully reciprocated by the US as well...same for misdemeanors for things like pot possession.
You never have the right to enter another country, and they can deny you for having the wrong colour socks if they deem such appropriate.